posted at 10:01 am on May 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barney Frank told the panel on ABC’s This Week that “I don’t think anyone’s vote was changed” when Barack Obama endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage — but that might be too optimistic an analysis. The New York Times reports that the White House went on a charm offensive with leaders of faith organizations, including and perhaps especially African-American churches where opposition to gay marriage runs high. So far, the charm offensive has had mixed results:

About two hours after declaring his support for same-sex marriage last week, President Obama gathered eight or so African-American ministers on a conference call to explain himself. He had struggled with the decision, he said, but had come to believe it was the right one.

The ministers, though, were not all as enthusiastic. A vocal few made it clear that the president’s stand on gay marriage might make it difficult for them to support his re-election. …

In the end, Mr. Coates, who supports civil marriages for gay men and lesbians, said that most of the pastors, regardless of their views on this issue, agreed to “work aggressively” on behalf of the president’s campaign. But not everyone. “Gay marriage is contrary to their understanding of Scripture,” Mr. Coates said. “There are people who are really wrestling with this.”

This was the danger of going on the record, a danger Obama’s allies on the Left apparently discounted. Obama drove turnout in 2008 in part through the enthusiastic participation of these very same churches. Having now sided with the people who call these black pastors and congregations “bigots,” especially in North Carolina where two-thirds of black voters supported Amendment One, Obama is not at risk of having them flip to Mitt Romney — but he does risk losing that enthusiasm, fundraising, and organization.

It’s not just about the policy itself, either. The churches now wonder whether Obama will back efforts to force churches to perform same-sex marriages, a topic which one religious leader broached with the President during one of the calls:

“Some of the faith communities are going to be afraid that this is an attack against religious liberty,” Mr. Hunter remembered telling the president.

“Absolutely not,” Mr. Obama insisted. “That’s not where we’re going, and that’s not what I want.”

Really? The Obama administration’s track record on religious freedom singularly argues otherwise. Most recently, the White House stabbed their allies in health-care reform in the Catholic Church in the back by using the ObamaCare law that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops supported to create a mandate that requires church organizations to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. Even more to the point, the Obama administration tried to apply the ADA to force a church to rehire a minister they’d terminated, an attempt that got a 9-0 rebuke from the Supreme Court.

The only time this President is solicitous of religious freedom and principles is when he’s trying to cover his own rear end.

On the other hand, Obama’s declaration has resulted in a lot of enthusiasm at churches … for Romney, as Andrew Malcolm explains:

Near the end of the competitive part of the recent Republican presidential primary season, Gov. Mitt Romney began showing growing support among evangelical voters. The Mormon had been losing that influential portion of the GOP base by lopsided proportions. Not anymore.

Thank you, Barack Obama. …

In a major examination of evangelical support for Romney the Deseret News Sunday quoted several Southern academics. Dave Woodard of Clemson University called Obama’s carefully-staged statement a gift for Romney highlighting his candidacy’s uniqueness in supporting traditional marriage.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s sealed the deal,” with most evangelical voters, Woodard told the paper. “I think he can make up for any other problems he has with them with just this one issue.”

Woodard added: “There is beginning to be some genuine enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. They’re not just going to talk about his Sunday morning activities. He has the convictions on the issues they like.”

Newsweek may have crowned Obama with a secular halo this weekend, but he’s not getting hosannas from the churches — and that might be all it takes to send Obama into retirement in January 2013.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

He will lie his way out of this with the black pastors. If you can not see what he is doing to religious freedom, you have to be blind or a fool. We know that there are a lot of fools that called themselves Christian the last time and voted for this monstrosity. Unfortunately 3 years of seeing his true colors has not changed many of them. Churches will be forced to sanction these marriages and there will be persecution/prosecution if they do not.

Any church or temple for that matter, irrespective of race, that adheres, or claims to adhere to scripture or testament has some significant explaining to do to their faithful if they support this President.

As noted, this President has indeed attacked religious liberty and the ability of the faithful to practice their faith according to religious beliefs. This is a fundamental part of our countries history, uniqueness and basic constitutional rights. Where does that destructive attack on our freedom end? What are its limits?

Even the most disinterested observer can see that in his actions both prominently displayed in both the Obamacare debate and so-called gay marriage.

What does it say about this group who appears to have chosen political expediency over the basic principles and articles of faith?

No black voter will embrace Romney over the gay-marriage admission, but quite a few may decide they have better things to do in November that walking to the polls. Worry not, though – their votes will be cast anyway.

“In the end, Mr. Coates, who supports civil marriages for gay men and lesbians, said that most of the pastors, regardless of their views on this issue, agreed to “work aggressively” on behalf of the president’s campaign.”

Will someone please explain to me how pastors can work aggressively on a political campaign without jeopardizing their tax exempt status? I understand that the Justice Dept. and the IRS is always very selective in whom they go after but why is no one from the conservative side ever willing to criticize churches who cede their pulpit to politicians or their supporters for the sole purpose of making a campaign speech?

So? Every black who refuses to vote for Obama nullifies a white who refuses to vote for Romney. If your goal is to see Romney in the White House, or even to see Obama lose, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing from a strictly partisan political standpoint.

Given that Obama got his start rabble rousing in the slums of Chicago, you would think that Obama took on a more pro-marriage message than just supporting the gays. The black community is filled with single mothers/grandmothers raising children of multiple baby daddies. This children have no strong male role model in their lives and turn to gangs as a result. The jails and prisons are filled with blacks who never had benefit of a father.

Yet it is gays and the alienation of black churches where Obama has focused attention. I guess that is because he assumes he will get 95% of the black vote regardless how much he panders to the sodomites who, BTW, have deeper pockets.

I´m sure most of the black community already suspected that the O had this core belief.

derecho on May 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I’m sure my neighbor dislikes me too although he’s never said anything. It’s no big deal as we have very little interaction. But our kids play together. But if he stood on his porch and started screaming “You know I really can’t stand that guy!” I doubt I would be sending my kids over there to play anymore.

Yet it is gays and the alienation of black churches where Obama has focused attention. I guess that is because he assumes he will get 95% of the black vote regardless how much he panders to the sodomites who, BTW, have deeper pockets.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

How is that so different from Mitt Romney who believes he’ll get 95% of the social con vote no matter what? I’m just saying, if you’re going to criticize Obama for thinking like this, he doesn’t have a monopoly on crass political considerations.

“Absolutely not,” Mr. Obama insisted. “That’s not where we’re going, and that’s not what I want.”

So is the Liar In Chief lying to the gay folks or is he lying to the black pastors? If a state wants to let gays pay for a marriage license, go ahead and let them call it what they will. The Word says it is an abomination. There is no wiggle room in the Word of GOD.

That was when I realized the SSM movement was about subverting religious organizations.

Obama would have no problem forcing churches to peform these ceremonies.

WisRich on May 14, 2012 at 10:14 AM

It is more than subversion of religious organizations. SSM proponents are not looking for live and let live. They want to force their world view on religous organizations, the laws, and society in general. It is in-your-face intolerance with no respect for those who are against SSM for religious reasons.

Depends on how hard they hit him every week. In Catholic churches they are praying “…That the President of the United States uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and respect and defend religious freedom…” answered by “Lord hear our prayer.”
every damn week.

Depends on how hard they hit him every week. In Catholic churches they are praying “…That the President of the United States uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and respect and defend religious freedom…” answered by “Lord hear our prayer.”
every damn week.

Of course, Obama will still get the Black vote. I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

BUT will they turn out for him like they did in 2008? If you have Black pastors on his own conference call reluctant to support him now, that is significant.

I think he had Black turn out issues before this. What has he done for Black people other than being Black? Unless Romney dons white sheets, I don’t think there will be great enthusiasm this time around.

Not sure how it’s will affect support for 0 this fall with blacks. I can tell you this. I know some big 0 supporters at Morehouse, take some time and research the schools positions towards gays. The school is full with folks that detest gays. I know this to be very true. Regardless of where they end up with it, it will be a very tough thing for them to square.

I think he had Black turn out issues before this. What has he done for Black people other than being Black? Unless Romney dons white sheets, I don’t think there will be great enthusiasm this time around.

How is that so different from Mitt Romney who believes he’ll get 95% of the social con vote no matter what? I’m just saying, if you’re going to criticize Obama for thinking like this, he doesn’t have a monopoly on crass political considerations.

gryphon202 on May 14, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Clearly you have reading comprehension issues. My point of Obama’s indifference was an aside to the bigger point that a black President should be worried a tad bit more about the lack of fathers among black families than he is about pandering to homosexuals who have no implicit “right” to marriage despite what they claim. Talk about selective reading!

So Dear Liar is only going to get 95% of the black vote, instead of 98%.

rbj on May 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM

It’s not the percentage he gets that will be his problem… it’s the turnout percentage and in what state they’re turning out in.

If the black vote doesn’t turn out at 2008 levels in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Virginia, etc., then it reduces his chances of winning and may end up causing problems down-ticket, as all four of those states have Dem senate seats up for grabs.

It’s funny you wrote that; I was thinking the exact same thing on my way to work today. The Newsweek’s cover is the gift that keeps on giving the whole election season.

This is not like calling Bill Clinton the first black President because everyone knows that he is not black. (Well, maybe he is black in the way the Elizabeth Warren is Native American.) But it is not clear about Obama. In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld, he’s tall, neat, and thin, You know that there are some people out there who might actually think Obama is literally the first gay President. (excluding James Buchan, of course).

I’m sure they Romney campaign staffers are rubbing their hands in Snidely Whiplash-esque glee over how they think this will hurt Obama. The truth of the matter is, if Romney has advisers that are worth their weight in sewage, they will proceed as if this doesn’t hurt Obama at all,, and the effort to distance Romney from Obama’s disastrous presidency will intensify. I don’t think this will happen, but that’s what I’d be telling Romney’s crew if I were a campaign adviser right now.

Not sure how it’s will affect support for 0 this fall with blacks. I can tell you this. I know some big 0 supporters at Morehouse, take some time and research the schools positions towards gays. The school is full with folks that detest gays. I know this to be very true.

You may be able to get away with this kind of crap in situations where there are no other black people around, but you’re not fooling anyone. I know dozens of black gay men who are Morehouse alums, Morehouse has an LGBT student group. The controversy over the Plastics was about dress code and a particularly flamboyant subset. Morehouse has its weird gender stuff, and there are certainly some within the leadership who are conservative (hint they are old) but there’s no question that Morehouse Men will by and large vote for Obama. Good gravy, you think you can just say any old thing about black people.

You don’t honestly think that Obama would get on a call to black pastors and talk about this issue without knowing he could get a good report out of this do you? This was a set-up.

These pastors are not the ones that Obama needs to worry about. There are lots of folks, not just in the pulpit but in the pews, who know their Bibles. They know that Obama’s ‘theology’ was Christianity according to Obama — God made in Obama’s image.

Those folks will not buy this. They may not talk about it now. They may not vote for a Republican. But they will take a stand for holiness, even if that stand means sitting at home on Election Day.

You don’t honestly think that Obama would get on a call to black pastors and talk about this issue without knowing he could get a good report out of this do you? This was a set-up.

These pastors are not the ones that Obama needs to worry about. There are lots of folks, not just in the pulpit but in the pews, who know their Bibles. They know that Obama’s ‘theology’ was Christianity according to Obama — God made in Obama’s image.

Those folks will not buy this. They may not talk about it now. They may not vote for a Republican. But they will take a stand for holiness, even if that stand means sitting at home on Election Day.

rlyle on May 14, 2012 at 10:30 AM

God made in man’s image, instead of the other way around? That sounds eerily prophetic, dude…

If the black vote doesn’t turn out at 2008 levels in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Virginia, etc., then it reduces his chances of winning and may end up causing problems down-ticket, as all four of those states have Dem senate seats up for grabs.

teke184 on May 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Quite right. But also, its May and the Obama campaign is primarily focused on their vote registration efforts. The only way this issue remains in the front of black voters minds is if the Romney campaign tries to exploit it for their gain. And the problem is that if Romney does that he risks energizing the majority of Americans who tacitly support gay marriage. As has been argued many times, the opponents of gay marriage are more energized now because they feel like they are about to lose the generational struggle. But if Romney goes on and on about this. If, for example, its a big part of the convention or the October campaigning then it goes against Romney. I’ll also add that (again for people who actually spend time around black folks) that no matter what people do in the booth the actual sentiment within the black community re Obama has always been more complicated than conservatives give credit for. African Americans support Obama because Democrats support Obama and African Americans are Democrats.

Blowback? Puh-leese.
Many blacks would vote for Zombie Hitler if he was the right color.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 14, 2012 at 10:28 AM

This is going to cost Obama votes at the margin. Right now, being pro-gay marriage is a net-negative on the national level. For whatever reason, it doesn’t produce positive votes. Even if he loses 1% on this issue, that could cost him the election.

Remember, Obama was branded very carefully. And this was a big part of his branding. It was not a conincidence that Obama did not make the same mistake that John Kerry made by supporting gay marriage. Some day, this issue will be a net-negative politically. But we are not there yet.

Obama was in the best position on this issue. He was nomitively against gay marriage when everyone who cared about this issue knew that he was really for it.

If you don’t think the (very organized) churches who supported Obama will not be turned off by this position, you are missing the point.

More important, this will undermine the careful brand of Obama. He will rue the day he made this decision.

Obama screwed the pooch on this one. He needs every ‘minority’ and ‘grievence group’ vote he can get and by placating one he stands to lose more support and votes from the others than he will gain. Obama is showing that he understands nothing about black people in this country outside of his hate whitey and hate America neighborhood in Chicago and knows absolutely nothing about any other ‘minority’ outside of their race warrior Marxist groups. Most black and Hispanic people are very religious and Obama and the Democrats’s actions and statements on issues such as abortion and gay marriage have offended them.

He will not gain many votes by this act within the gay community, either. The people who are the most happy about his statement on gay marraige are ones that would already vote for him no matter what and who live in states that are a sure thing for him to win like California, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, etc.. Most of the gay people I know have no intention of voting for him this time around no matter what his stace is on gay marraige or even if he came out of the closet in full drag. Why? Because they are business people and in the end they, like everyone else, are voting with their wallets. The ones who voted for him in 2008 and do intend to vote for him in 2012 read books by Marx and Alinsky and are either academics or work in the entertainment and media industries.

As an aside I once asked my neice why, despite her being a lesbian, did not support gay marraige. She said she was just fine without all the paperwork and did not want to discover the ‘joys of gay divorce’.

Looks like Obama has finally humped the shark. (No, that’s not a typo.) Unfortunately, in spite of the expressed dismay of the Black clergy, it is doubtful that even this “evolution” of Obama’s will affect the black vote. By November, Black voters will have rationalized Obama’s position on gay marriage, just as gays rationalized his previous position.

So I guess this is what we’re going to be talking about and reading headlines about all this week.
The country is headed off the cliff, nobody can find full-time employment, we face becoming weaker and weaker to our international enemies, the housing slump isn’t getting any better, but let’s spend another week taking our eye off the ball to talk about men marrying men and women marrying women.

You may be able to get away with this kind of crap in situations where there are no other black people around, but you’re not fooling anyone. I know dozens of black gay men who are Morehouse alums, Morehouse has an LGBT student group. The controversy over the Plastics was about dress code and a particularly flamboyant subset. Morehouse has its weird gender stuff, and there are certainly some within the leadership who are conservative (hint they are old) but there’s no question that Morehouse Men will by and large vote for Obama. Good gravy, you think you can just say any old thing about black people.

libfreeordie on May 14, 2012 at 10:28 AM

You’ve proven yourself to be a liar and a idiot on almost every comment thread. I’ll take Bmore’s word over yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Oh and the fact that a quick goggle search proves Bmore is correct.

The device has yet to be invented that can measure the insanity of these leftists.

50sGuy on May 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I think a $16 trillion national debt on an exponetial upward track, a real unemployment rate of around 20% and a record number of Americans on food stamps are all real world measurements of the left’s insanity.

That was when I realized the SSM movement was about subverting religious organizations.

This is exactly the point. It is not about being accepted generally, it is about controlling. We have an annual fair, and last year gays wanted the fair to put up rainbow banners to announce acceptance of gays, or something. Of course, gay folks come to the fair, walk around hand in hand, enjoy the monster trucks just like everyone else. Which should be the point, right? But no. They need to represent.

While we’re discussing the “moral equivalence” of Obama vs Romney, why doesn’t someone ask which is worse…cutting someone’s hair in high school or an adult who CASTS A VOTE saying it’s OK to allow a living, breathing human child who survives an abortion to be thrown in a trash can & left to die???
Just curious.